3 ms·

> ATC isn't even the worst offender. Law enforcement and prison guards can pull 100+ hours a week on a regular basis. This is how prison guards can pull $400k/y

> ATC isn't even the worst offender. Law enforcement and prison guards can pull 100+ hours a week on a regular basis. This is how prison guards can pull $400k/year. There's definitely elements of that - but part of that is that many pensions are based on the two highest earning years of your career, so it's "common" among cops when they are planning to retire to spend two years working every possible piece of OT available, to maximize their pension income.

SZJX 7mo ago
Sounds like a weird incentivization for sure. Why not base the pension on the average over all the years worked as in many other countries? When you offer such incentives, people will naturally work in such a way.
- ralferoo 7mo ago
  Because you'll loose half a career's worth of inflationary salary rises that way. Also, women might work part time after having children which would skew the average annual salary down. Over a 40 year career, just from inflation alone, you'd be getting about half your final salary that way, even ignoring any increases later on from being better qualified or taking on more responsibility. Mind you, in the UK, defined benefits pension schemes are very rare nowadays, but where they exist they are defined as a percentage of the final year salary with that company, so the highest 2 year thing seems a bit weird to me but for a different reason.
  - ethbr1 7mo ago
    Highest 2 year is an attempt to address the edge cases around 1 year (especially final year).
  - panick21_ 7mo ago
    You can adjust for inflation and only exclude year where you don't work full time.
- kelipso 7mo ago
  Much more obvious solution is to not include overtime pay in the pension calculation.
- tom_alexander 7mo ago
  In the US, social security is based on the 35 highest paying years. If that system is good enough for social security, I don't see why we don't do the same for government pensions.

SZJX 7mo ago

Sounds like a weird incentivization for sure. Why not base the pension on the average over all the years worked as in many other countries? When you offer such incentives, people will naturally work in such a way.

ralferoo 7mo ago
Because you'll loose half a career's worth of inflationary salary rises that way. Also, women might work part time after having children which would skew the average annual salary down. Over a 40 year career, just from inflation alone, you'd be getting about half your final salary that way, even ignoring any increases later on from being better qualified or taking on more responsibility. Mind you, in the UK, defined benefits pension schemes are very rare nowadays, but where they exist they are defined as a percentage of the final year salary with that company, so the highest 2 year thing seems a bit weird to me but for a different reason.
- ethbr1 7mo ago
  Highest 2 year is an attempt to address the edge cases around 1 year (especially final year).
- panick21_ 7mo ago
  You can adjust for inflation and only exclude year where you don't work full time.
kelipso 7mo ago
Much more obvious solution is to not include overtime pay in the pension calculation.
tom_alexander 7mo ago
In the US, social security is based on the 35 highest paying years. If that system is good enough for social security, I don't see why we don't do the same for government pensions.